Subject:
|
Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:34:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
298 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Even if you are correct. You have produced a report which suggests that one
> statistic may be wrong. Your argument alleges that the UN systematically
> produces duff statistics. I’m not clear how you have reached that
> conclusion. Perhaps you could explain?
Well, it seems obvious to me that if they have produced one study that is
bogus, that all their work is suspect.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) As an aside, I don't think I actually said that. I think they're all SUSPECT but some of them may well be correct. Especially the ones that have better data collection behind them. The statistic that started this strikes me as being VERY hard (...) (23 years ago, 21-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) Chris, 1. I think "bogus" is rather strong. 2. We do not know that that stat is duff(?) 3. Even if it is, we need to find where the error is from. Until then, I shall continue to view Larry's view as nothing more than convenient: ==+== I have (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: On the veracity of statistics in general
|
| (...) Hmm. The word “impartial” does *not* come to mind. Is this the best you can do? Even if you are correct. You have produced a report which suggests that one statistic may be wrong. Your argument alleges that the UN systematically produces duff (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
